Prairie_Scouter

Hmmm, well, I guess there are some things that don't roll up hill after all It'd be interesting to see what the criteria were for being nominated for the award. Just thought I'd throw in my fair share of "whining and complaining"

Bob, For the reasons you listed, this post would not be appropriate for the "regular" Scouting forums, but is appropriate for "Issues and Politics", which is where jkhny placed it. As far as St John is concerned, I did have the opportunity to meet him in 2004 at a trip to Seabase. Seemed like great administrator, really interested in his program and making sure the Scouts had a good experience. Exactly the kind of guy we should all want in Scouting. According to news reports at the time, he did not "avow" himself, causing his firing. It is suspected that an irate employee reported his attendance at a predominantly gay retreat. Of course, we don't have all the details, but it appears he wasn't successful getting an out-of-court settlement from BSA, so it's most likely he'll sue under Florida's anti-discrimination employment laws, giving BSA yet more unwanted publicity.

Is it possible, as some web documents have indicated, that the gay issue isn't as much decided by a majority of CO representatives as it is by a significant minority, including the LDS units, who had threatened to leave BSA if their views weren't accepted as policy? Caveats.... I'm not saying that I think this is what happened. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with the LDS membership. I can post some references, if anyone would like, or you can just Google "Scouting Gays LDS"

Sorry, Bob. In my post above, I was referring to the adult members, not the youth members.

My dad was a medic during WWII. There's a reason they're called "The Greatest Generation".

Ed, I'm sure you're right that members would leave if BSA opened their doors to gays, but I'm not so sure that there would be a huge loss; there's no way to tell, of course. You'd certainly lose the more conservative religious members. You'd probably have the entire LDS contingent review their relationship with BSA (strangely, while there have been rumors for years that the LDS church is pushing the buttons on the gay membership issue, I have Mormon friends who say just the opposite, so who knows?). But, I wonder if the majority of the members would sit down, look at the big picture, and wonder what the big deal is. The program needn't change, and that's what the Scouts really see. It's interesting to conjecture about, tho.

Yeah, out of 20, we had 2, and maybe a 3rd. Just didn't seem worth the trip. Too bad, too, it looks like a great outing this year. We were at Grant Pilgrimage this past May. Camped at Mississippi Palisades. Had a great time.

ASM59, The church that acts as our CO has had discussions at the board level of their organization as to whether they should continue to sponsor us. The church supports gays. This discussion has been held each of the last 3 years, and each year they've decided to give us another year. We've considered moving our charter simply to avoid the annual hassle. So, in answer to your question, we haven't had our charter "non-renewed" yet over the gay issue, but it's become a sore point with our CO. At least in Illinois, PTAs are not allowed to charter Scout units. Their published reason is that their insurance will not cover them for the increased liability brought about by the BSA adult leader application. They feel that it effectively shifts liability to the CO. Note that *I'm* not saying this or agreeing; that's just what was passed on to us.

I think a get together of some sort each week for Cub Scouts is a good idea, whether that be a den meeting, outing, or pack night. That assumes that the leaders are able to put together fun meetings for the Scouts, something that's fairly easy to do if you make use of the meeting guides that are readily available from BSA. If the leaders can only put together 2 meetings a month, plus pack night, you're probably better off doing that than trying to "force" more meetings that the Scouts will get bored with. In the pack that my 2 sons were in, we had weekly meetings of some sort, except for during school breaks and over the summer. Over the summer, we held several summer activities instead, including family camp and day camp. From my own experience, I think the burn out factor isn't really coming from Scouting, I think it's Scouting, plus baseball, plus soccer, plus volleyball, plus band, plus etc. Many kids today are over committed. I partially blame the parents for this, for not saying "enough".

Seattle, Let's not for even a second try to imply that the Democratic left is some sort of anti-American group that's damaging the country, ok? From your comments, I'd have to think that you think that the McCarthy Hearings were just dandy devices for rooting out evil in the country. Whoops! Destroy a few lives with rumor and inuendo? Okeedokee. Send out the FBI on fishing expeditions to dig up any dirt you can? Okeedokee. ABUSE of welfare programs caused problems, not welfare itself. The vast majority of people on welfare were well-meaning, down on their luck people who need short term help for a variety of reasons. The long term welfare recipients are the victims of government policy as much as anything else. Are there cheaters? Sure. But they are a tiny minority compared to those who use the program as a chance to lift themselves up. Changes in divorce laws and other social policies could be easily seen as a backlash against overly conservative policies of the past. The pendulum swings both ways. And yes, I agree, we shouldn't allow our lives to be dictated by the "news media and the chattering classes", REGARDLESS of whether they are liberal or conservative in their agenda. I wouldn't trust Michael Moore any more than I'd trust Rush Limbaugh. And I agree with the "middle of the road", "equal tension" view to some extent. I wish that Scouting would get there.

Thankfully, across the country and in many different areas besides Scouting, we have "whistleblowers" who have taken it upon themselves to look beyond their own cubicle of responsibility and look to the greater good. These are the people who effect change, from the inside as well as the outside. These people are generally castigated by those who are perfectly happy with the status quo or don't truly understand the issues being brought up. Scouting says that they want the best possible leaders for the youth in their units. These are going to be reasonably intelligent people, and may have a problem with accepting a policy, not because it is explained to them, but because the National office says "we said so". It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the National office to provide Scouters with the rational and logic behind their decisions if they expect us to live with those policies, and possibly defend them to our units. That information does seem to be lacking. This whole idea of just following the National office dictates because they say so, and not understanding, or be given the information needed to understand, WHY we're doing the things we do, just seems really contrary of the whole idea of Scouters assisting the youth in their units to become thinking, responsible citizens if we're not being that ourselves.

Hi eagle, Unfortunately, not. We were planning on going, but have a lot of Scouts in fall sports that all happen to have events that weekend. Hopefully, we'll run into each other at some other event. Do you guys go to the Grant Pilgrimage in Galena, by any chance?

Bob, thanks for the information. Appreciate it.

I think we've covered a fair bit of ground in this thread in regards to the original topic posted. Thanks to all those who provided their thoughts. It seems pretty clear that there is at least a perception in the public that BSA has more problems than other organizations, and that would seem to be especially true this year, with all the press BSA has gotten over deaths and accidents. Whether BSA is at fault in these case, or whether you can describe them as all being isolated problems, I don't know. But it seems clear that BSA has a visibility problem, as in too much visibility that is negative towards them. Once again, whether that is their own doing or not by not dealing with it effectively, I don't know. On the off topic discussion of actions within BSA to effect change... I've also kind of tired of the kibitzing in the topic with BW. I ask questions. The answers I get always seem to have to include some sort of accusation. BW asks for examples, I provide what I have available. The standard response seems to be something to the effect of "those don't count". So, I'll continue down the "path of enlightenment" that I've chosen, which is slow, but steady. If Bob wants to say that that means I'm not doing anything, in effect calling me a liar and further, that I purposely post false information, that's his perogative. Bob, if you're attitudes towards some people here reflect how you act in your District and Council, I can only assume that life there for the others must be, to say the least, interesting.

Like I figured, Bob, it really doesn't matter what I say. You just read it (or not) and make up your own conclusions. Anyone who says anything negative about BSA's actions is just a target to you. Everything I need to know? Hardly. What you've described is the next step, that is, the public structure. To be successful in change, tho, you have to know the internal workings, not the "here's how it's supposed to work". I've said that in this thread a couple of times. So, I appreciate the information; about half of it I had, but I do appreciate the additions. Could you please provide a link to where the minutes of the meetings are posted? I haven't been able to find them. Other than that, I don't think we need to continue this any longer; it's not relevent to the thread, anyway.

Bob, (long sigh) Ok, I guess you might say that *I* got the response I expected as well. So, I shouldn't have been surprised, and wasn't. I had hoped for something different, tho. But, what the heck, it's a Saturday night, so let's go for one more round. Regards positive statements about BSA, you didn't ask for any. The response I constructed didn't require any at this point. If you want to hear a list of positive thoughts I have about BSA, just ask. Not to begin a semantic debate of little value, but traditions can and do change. Many college football teams had a tradition of using Native American caricatures as their mascots. That is changing. Fraternities had traditions of hazing their pledges. That is changing. The fact that they used to do those things is part of their history. That can't be changed, but the traditions can. Regards point 1. I'd say the best evidence I have is a lack of available information in regards to such discussions having taken place, at least that I have been able to find. If BSA National has done so, why wouldn't they make that public? It would certainly improve their public persona. Regards point 2. Well, the easy one is Scoutmaster Dave Rice, removed in 1998. And, in 2001, there are reports that several Cub Scout units in Oak Park, IL were disbanded by the National Office after they announced that they would not discriminate in their membership policies. (Having the unit leaders removed from their positions was a byproduct of this action, so that would account for possibly another dozen or so?). In signing the Adult Leader application, you effectively are agreeing to BSA policies. If you then announce that you do not agree with those policies, I think it's reasonable to assume that BSA would take some action. (I hope we don't have to debate over if it was really the National office that did these things, or the CO, acting on BSA National advice; same difference, in my mind) Regards Point 3. I think I did post recently that that was a piece of information I was trying to track down. I've contacted my local DE, and haven't heard back yet. So, this is hopefully in process at this point. Regards Point 4. Well, this was the point where you decided it was time to start debating, so I'm not sure if there's a question in there or not. But to answer your remarks, no, the comment about not having done anything is not correct. Efforts with results, you are correct, none to date at the National level, and granted, although I've taken some small steps locally, those wouldn't count if you're only looking at National results. But efforts? Oh, yes, there have been efforts. Whether there is a "situation" or not, well, that speaks for itself. BSA National definitely has a situation on its hands in regards to its membership policies. If there were no situation, there'd be no court cases and no unwanted publicity. As I clearly said in my later post, my suggestion for a solution would need to involve a solution that would somehow be agreeable to most parties involved, enough to get a consensus to move forward on. Whether the membership policy is correct or not is definitely my opinion. In regards to my "formulating" a letter, you can have your opinion, but you're wrong in your assessment. In fact, I've been working through several drafts of these ideas, and as I said in one of my added posts, I'm happy to share that once I feel that it's ready for "prime time". If you want to belittle that work, you're free to do so. After a bit more belittling comments your post basically came to a close. Ask for information? I ask and look for information all the time; not necessarily here. I've said before that it's difficult to get unbiased information. These forums are hardly the place to get unbiased answers to questions on "issues and politics", don't you think? The best a person can do is gather information from several sources and try to find common threads that seem accurate. It seems pretty clear that you're not going to accept anything I have to say and nothing I'm doing is going to pass muster with you, so go ahead, slam away.

One. Let me agree 100% with Bob White's comments. Right on target. Two. You mentioned that you and your 2 sons are not Cubs yet. This pack sounds pretty, well, screwed up. If you haven't decided to join yet, I might suggest that you look elsewhere, or if your sons have friends in the pack and that's why they're considering joining, follow up with your concerns with the leaders, and ask if they're really supposed to be doing that because, as a pack is supposed to be run, the answer is "no".

As a fellow SM, his methods bother me somewhat. I think that the path to advancement is every bit as important as the destination, if not more so. But, if someone wants to "run down the path", you really can't stop him. I've seen it. Sometimes it's the Scout, sometimes that parent, but I think they're missing some of the fun if they go too fast. That's just my view, so as long as I see the Scout enjoying himself, I won't deny him an advancement that he's rightfully earned. Playing games with the rules to slow someone down in the ways mentioned just isn't right. Besides, the advancement rules are what they are, you can't add things to them just because you want to.

Sorry, one more thought. There was a request to "share my plan". Happy to do so when it's "fully baked". You can't go to National with a plan that says "be nice to gays" . A credible plan has to consider the political ramifications as well as the policy implications of such a change. That's one reason why I want to understand the part about "how do things really work" because a plan for change has to address the concerns of various groups who would be initially opposed to such change. So, while it sounds good to say "it's wrong to discriminate", any plan to address the perceived problem has to consider how National would address the concerns and objections of such groups within BSA, if such a plan were to be successful. You won't be able to assuage the true extremists, but the majority who live "in the middle" could be convinced to go along.

And, in case it isn't entirely clear, I do put a lot of effort into making sure that my views don't enter into our troop activities. The other adult leaders have a pretty good idea of how I feel, but it's entirely outside our Scout activities. Just wanted to be clear on that. Besides, I'm much too shy to say much about what I think

Well, Greetings and Howdy to you, too, Pal! Well, since you asked..... Until 3 or 4 years ago, I was something of a naive bumpkin when it comes to the politics of BSA. I, for some unbeknownst reason, thought that BSA, like many other organizations, had "policies" that were in place for some reason or another, but were largely ignored. It could be that my local experience led me that way, because I had never met anyone in Scouting who thought that the policies on gays and athiests was something that was actually considered a "big deal", feeling that it was largely ignored at least locally. Maybe it had just never come up as an issue. I had no knowledge of the Supreme Court decision, the "allowances" made for the LDS, and the particular hatred that some Scouters have for those who are against those policies. Not everyone, of course. About 2 years ago, our local district newsletter had an article in it in which those who oppose some BSA policies were labeled as the "enemy" and asked how anyone could be against BSA, since their mission was so "righteous". Bigotry and discrimination are particular hot buttons of mine. These seemed like pretty outrageous statements to make. I then started contacting our distict leaders to say that I thought that these kinds of comments were out of line in a newsletter that was supposed to be about "news". I also said that if they're going to allow these kinds of articles, then it's only fair that they allow opposing views to be published as well. They responded that they agreed that the comments in the newsletter were out of line, but rather than turn the newsletter into a discussion journal, they would assign an editor to more closely monitor what gets included. Informally, I continued discussing these issues with the district, and 1 or 2 council leaders. A couple of them were kind enough to more or less begin my education on the politics of BSA. It was then that I found out what can happen to Scouters who become too public in their views...well, if those views don't happen to coincide with BSA policy, anyway. Now, I was brought up to think that when you see something wrong, you should try to fix it. I also grew up in a family that was connected with the political organization in Chicago (to a small extent). A relative of mine told me once that sometimes the best way to fight a political battle is from within. And, to understand your opponent. So, I've spent a good deal of time trying to find objective sources of information about the issues confronting BSA. I've kind of concluded at this point that there are no unbiased sources of information. If you look for awhile, you can eventually find sources of information on things like basic BSA structure. But, if you start asking questions about how that structure works, and then go on to "how do they REALLY work", well, that becomes more difficult. Anyway.... So, I've had a couple of minor skirmishes with the local district and council. Since their leadership seems to be decidedly middle of the road, they try to take a stance of "look, this is the way it is, but you know, we're all just trying to do the best we can, so let's try to get along." I can be satisfied with that, and they seem to be well meaning and open to dialog, albeit informal, because opening formal dialog seems to be a path to, well, bad things. They've made it pretty clear that they don't have anything to say about what National does, so that's not really the place to fight the battle. Changing the position of one council doesn't help because the National office can just sanction them. You need to advocate change at the National level. I've been asked to participate at the district level a couple of times, but right now, I'm too busy with my troop. The local program is one of the areas where I think BSA does a very good job. My troop has been pretty lax about following the BSA program, and making use of the readily available resources; things as simple as the program features. I've spent the better part of the last year working those into our program. I think it'll help us quite a bit. So, I'm not as negative on BSA as you like to think. So, thats where most of my available time has been going. As my troops gets onto more solid ground, that might allow some time for further participation. In the meantime, I've been working on a couple of letters to be sent to the National Office to present some alternative views of the current policies on gays and athiests. The discussions here have helped to jell some ideas I've been tossing around that are very similar to ideas brought up here. Right now, I'm trying to figure out the best place to get an open hearing of such ideas without getting my butt immediately kicked out of BSA. Getting thrown out doesn't help my troop, and being outside doesn't seem to be the place to have any effect. The political situation right now is such that I don't think any view that tries to address the gay and/or athiest issue is going to get a hearing. In my opinion, BSA is putting a lot of effort into satisfying the conservative religious base in BSA, and I don't think that, today, anything that talks about moderating their view on these issues is going to get heard. That doesn't mean I'm not going to try, but it does mean that I have to be careful about how I approach this. I try to view this kind of pragmatically. I think if BSA were to alter their views on gays and athiests, this, in the long run, would lead to a better BSA on many levels. Would there be losses? Sure, but I think the long term gains would offset this by picking up support from groups currently not aligned with BSA. BSA would then be more likely to get support from areas that now have decided not to support BSA. And, maybe more important than anything else, BSA would get out of the firestorm it sometimes finds itself in, and it could get back to the job of building tomorrows men of character, possibly with access to more resources than it has now. So, if someone were to come up to me and say, "hey, National want to begin consideration of moderating our views on gays and athiests. It could be a long haul, but we want to discuss it. Interested?", Sure, I'd be interested. So far, that opportunity hasn't presented itself. So, most of my energy is currently going into my troop. But I'm trying to work in what small ways I can to solicit change at other levels of BSA. BSA is a wonderful organization at many levels; I would say, at most levels. But things are happening that worry me, and I don't like the idea that wearing the uniform labels me as a bigot and in favor of discrimination to some people. I've found nothing to change my view that the current stand on gays and athiests is only damaging BSA. This is called "traditional" values, but I think it's really just "historical" values. Traditions can change, and history doesn't have to repeat itself. I think that BSA could find a middle ground that would work, but there seem to be groups within BSA that won't allow that to even be discussed. I'd like to help them find that middle ground. Just my opinions, and I know that they're really not accepted here, but the discussions here, as I said, help to clarify and sometimes correct my positions, and for that reason, these forums are very good. Besides, mostly, the interactions are pleasant and friendly. So, did you really want to know, or did you not expect a response, or were you just looking for something to beat me over the head with?

Bob, Maybe jkhny just has a lot to say. It's not like we're wasting paper Now, if you don't agree with jk, then his multiple posts full of information are bound to look like BSA bashing. I think that the web searches show a couple of things, which may be what he was getting at by providing the numbers. One, BSA is in the news a lot from a lot of different sources. This just shows how easy it is for good or bad news to quickly spread in the day of the Internet. Two, he displays some good news in showing that not all of those hits are individual events. But, they do represent some number of individual events and that should be a cause for concern to all of us. And, it's hard to have a forum on issues and politics if no one posts items of "issues" and "politics". So, we do. There are plenty of peole who start threads on how BSA is being railroaded in the press or being mistreated by some group or other. The topics on perceived problems at BSA are no different, just the other side of the same coin. They're not "phantom problems" either, they exist. On the other hand, there are plenty of things I like about BSA, and I've said so. >"Those who say it can't be done should get out of the way of those >who are doing it" Exactly so, Bob, and that why I'm not going to give up my efforts to correct situations in BSA that don't seem right, regardless of those who say I should just worry about my unit and leave everything else alone.

If you've been to Philmont and are looking for other "Scouty" kinds of places to visit, you might consider Seabase. It is generally less expensive than Philmont and is a great trip. Usual caveats on cost, of course,,,,depends where you're coming from, etc. If you're looking for more "generic" neat places to visit, you might consider the area around Grand Teton and Yellowstone Nat Parks in Wyoming. Once again, depends on your budget, where you are, how you can travel, etc. but those are 2 places I've really enjoyed.

Could be the only "us vs them" in the BSA are the people who have open minds and the people who don't. And while I freely accept the role of "one of the others" on some issues, I'll thank some of you to not paint me or anyone else with some generic brush as being those who want to bring down BSA or some such thing. Everyone I've talked to who at times disagrees with BSA policy is in the BSA because we see the value of the organization and want the BSA to be the best it can be. We want change because we think it will lead to a better BSA, not because we want to damage it. If people disagree with that, that's fine, and I'm happy to discuss that. There's a fella in my Council who thinks anyone who doesn't agree with BSA on all things is "the enemy". Some people here are treated the same way. I'm not the enemy; I just don't agree with some of the things BSA does. Rip the arguments to shreds if you can; that's why we present things here. Regards the current line of thought, no, units could not survive if suddenly set adrift by the dissolution of the districts, councils, and national office. But, given some time, I'd be willing to believe that a substitute structure could be put in place to provide many of the same services currently being offered. In the long run, you could end up with the same structure you have now, so what would be the point of that, really? I don't know how many councils there are in the U.S.; probably "zillions", and I'd bet that the vast majority of them are squeaky clean. BUT, if you're an organization that portrays itself as being as angelic as BSA does, you have to have more the vast majority, you have to have absolutely everything be perfectly clean. When you put yourself on a pedestal, lots of people want to take you down, so you need to be really careful. From even the small number of scandals that have been reported, it's fairly clear that BSA's audit procedures don't work as well as they might. And since they've happened periodically over the years, I'd have to say that they haven't taken effective action to correct those procedures. If audits are done correctly, you don't see the same problems recurring. And responsibility for the problems roll uphill. It can be said that the Councils are independent and the National has no responsibility for what they do, but the reality is, somebody has to provide the checks and balances to make sure that the Councils are following procedure, and the buck stops at National at some point, if for no other reason than to protect the overall image of Scouting. And the National office has the ultimate leverage over the Councils; they can pull their charters; that could be incorrect terminology (maybe it's "cancel their contract"), but you get the drift.

Bob, it's fairly clear that you missed the detail in jkhny's post, otherwise you have noticed that he did say that out of the hits he got on his searches, few were relevent, but that some certainly were. He noted this several times.